Corrigendum: Systemic treatment of breast cancer. 1st Central-Eastern European professional Consensus Statement on breast cancer.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/pore.2022.1610383.].

Systemic Treatment of Breast Cancer. 1st Central-Eastern European Professional Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer.

This text is based on the recommendations accepted by the 4th Hungarian Consensus Conference on Breast Cancer, modified based on the international consultation and conference within the frames of the Central-Eastern European Academy of Oncology. The professional guideline primarily reflects the resolutions and recommendations of the current ESMO, NCCN and ABC5, as well as that of the St. Gallen Consensus Conference statements. The recommendations cover classical prognostic factors and certain multigene tests, which play an important role in therapeutic decision-making. From a didactic point of view, the text first addresses early and then locally advanced breast cancer, followed by locoregionally recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Within these, we discuss each group according to the available therapeutic options. At the end of the recommendations, we summarize the criteria for treatment in certain rare clinical situations.

Next-Generation Sequencing of Circulating Tumor DNA Can Optimize Second-Line Treatment in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer after Progression on anti-EGFR Therapy: Time to Rethink Our Approach.

BACKGROUND: Management of Ras wild-type colorectal cancer (CRC) patients upon disease progression after the successful use of targeted treatment with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies and backbone chemotherapy remains a clinical challenge. SUMMARY: Development of treatment resistance with prevalence of preexisting RAS mutated clones, RAS mutation conversion, truncation of extracellular receptor domains as well as HER2 and MET amplification are molecular events that can be difficult to follow without the use of sophisticated laboratory techniques. The clinical hurdle of re-biopsy and tumor heterogeneity can be overcome by the implementation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) to analyze circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and identify druggable mutations or recovery of RAS-wildness. In this opinion paper, we summarize with critical thinking the clinical approach to be followed after the failure of first-line treatment in Ras wild-type CRC tumors with the use of NGS. Rechallenge with anti-EGFR inhibitors, in case of persistent or recovery of RAS-wildness, and targeted approach of specific mutations (BRAF inhibitors), amplifications (anti-Her2 treatment), or fusion proteins (NTRK inhibitors) can by guided by the use of NGS. The use of NGS platforms for serial analysis of ctDNA is an important step to better understand the molecular landscape of metastatic CRC and guide clinical decisions. KEY MESSAGES: NGS should be considered a mainstay in clinical practice for the management of CRC patients and health authorities should consider reimbursing its use in the appropriate clinical settings.

Synthesis of Recommendations From 25 Countries and 31 Oncology Societies: How to Navigate Through Covid-19 Labyrinth.

INTRODUCTION: Pandemic COVID-19 is an unexpected challenge for the oncological community, indicating potential detrimental effects on cancer patients. Our aim was to summarize the converging key points providing a general guidance in order to support decision making, pertaining to the oncologic care in the middle of a global outbreak. METHODS: We did an international online search in twenty five countries that have managed a surge in cancer patient numbers. We collected the recommendations from thirty one medical oncology societies. RESULTS: By synthesizing guidelines for a) oncology service delivery adjustments, b) general and specific treatment adaptations, and c) discrepancies from guidelines comparison, we present a clinical synopsis with the forty more crucial statements. A Covid-19 risk stratification base was also created in order to obtain a quick, objective patient assessment and a risk-benefit evaluation on a case-by-case basis. CONCLUSIONS: In an attempt to face these complex needs and due to limited understanding of COVID-19, a variability of recommendations based on general epidemiological and infectious disease principles rather than definite cancer-related evidence has evolved. Additionally, the absence of an effective treatment or vaccine requires the development of cancer management guidance, capitalizing on comprehensive COVID-19 oncology experience globally.

Pharmacokinetic profile and safety of intravenous NEPA, a fixed combination of fosnetupitant and palonosetron, in cancer patients: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

NEPA is the fixed combination antiemetic composed of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist netupitant and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron. The intravenous (i.v.) formulation of NEPA (fosnetupitant 235 mg/palonosetron 0.25 mg) was developed to enhance the convenience of NEPA administration. In a phase 3 study, i.v. NEPA showed acceptable safety with low risk for injection-site reactions. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of i.v. NEPA in cancer patients. This was a single-center, single-dose phase 1 study in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received a 30-min infusion of i.v. NEPA plus oral dexamethasone (12 mg) prior to chemotherapy, and oral dexamethasone (8 mg/daily) on days 2-4. Twenty-four patients received the complete i.v. NEPA infusion volume. Fosnetupitant maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) was reached at the end of infusion and decreased to <1% of Cmax 30 min later. Netupitant was rapidly released from its prodrug and Cmax of 590 ng/ml was reached at the end of fosnetupitant infusion, with a mean exposure (AUC∞) of 15,588 h∙ng/ml. Palonosetron Cmax was reached at the end of infusion, with a mean AUC∞ of 36.07 h∙ng/ml. The most common adverse events were constipation (29%), nausea (17%), and vasospasm (8%). No i.v. NEPA-related injection site reactions occurred. Fosnetupitant conversion to netupitant occurred rapidly in cancer patients. Netupitant and palonosetron pharmacokinetic profiles in i.v. NEPA were similar to those reported for oral NEPA. i.v. NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to oral NEPA. i.v. NEPA provides additional administration convenience. Clinical trial registration number: EudraCT 2015-004750-18.